Of course we see God in evolution, but that is not because of science. And we talk about it when we are talking theologically, because God is the creator and he undergirds all of reality, natural reality and spiritual reality.
“IOW they do not talk what they believe” is a silly self-righteous accusation of hypocrisy by someone who cannot see what is really the elephant in the room, and that is the inability to distinguish between science and religion, to distinguish between science and theology, to distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, to distinguish between nature and the supernatural when actually doing science and teaching it and how it is done.
God is in evolution, just not in the science of evolution. Of course “He is not in the scientific theory that is taught”.
How can he be. By now, you should be able to answer that because it is a no-brainer. What does science deal with and exclusively so? The physical realm, not the metaphysical; the natural realm and not the supernatural; the methodological realm, not the philosophical and religious realm.
So want as intensely you may, you are not going to erase the realities of those distinctions and the truth of those facts.
So, from that statement it appears you are saying that people with a dogmatic or binary type thought process are predisposed and so self select to be YEC adherents. That tends to be my impression as well, that for the most part, biblical literalists are born, not made.
Isn’t that what I just said? That there is no objective, observable, and maybe I need to add indisputable evidence of God’s existence in God’s creation? You are not using the same meaning, by quite a wide margin, that I am using for the terms “subjective” and “objective”! Poorly defined terms significantly contribute to the confusion.
So if I said God has not revealed Himself scientifically (instead of trying to explain what I meant) would you agree with me? As you point out, the proofs you present might, or might not, be considered adequate in a court case. They do not provide the repeatable, testable means of claiming scientific observational objectivity that I am famiiar with in submitting papers for publication in reviewed journals (or even reviewed submissions to scientific conferences, for both printing in the proceedings, and for presenting at the meetings).
And you don’t have to convince me that God exists; She has shown Herself to me personally! And if you take offense at the pronoun, be very careful. God is not male or female, like we humans are, and God does come to different people in different ways - where we are, not insisting that we go and find Him where He is hiding.
But none of those ways are available for scientific investigation, especially not available for preparing a test case, predicting how God will show up, and executing the test case and verifying that God really did show up as predicted.
The bottom line point seems to stand: There is no way of determining from the study of the physical universe whether or not God exists.
And my point holds: if God exists (as I believe, from other non-scientific reports and experiences), then it is God’s choice that His presence is hidden, and it might be better use of our intellectual efforts to try to understand why God does that, than to engage in a futile effort to prove something that God has chosen to make unprovable.
Not the way it reads. Doesn’t that say there is such a fact? I refuse to believe that ‘scientific fact’ too. How can there be any scientific fact about God, yea or nay?
There is no scientifically testable evidence of God’s existence.
Subjective: subject to feeling or sensation. Don’t confuse personal with subjective. The former does not necessarily imply the latter, but the latter probably does imply the former. Objective: factual. Make a distinction between fact and scientific fact.
It is a fact that I personally am seeing what I subjectively perceive to be black letters on a white background on my iPad right now. (I could hypothetically be mistaken about the colors because they are subjectively perceived.) Without maybe a PET scan and/or some EEG electrodes plus some science that probably doesn’t exist yet, that fact won’t be a demonstrable scientific fact for a while yet. But it is still a fact, a fact about my perceptions, nothing subjective about it. You, of course, may choose to believe that fact or disbelieve it for whatever reason.
I will maintain that Phil Yancey had an objective experience with God. Likewise Maggie and Rich Stearns. There are discernible facts involved. Deniers will deny, but that will not change the objectivity of the facts.
I do. He talks about himself in exclusively male terms. Maybe some will think that’s patriarchal, but I respect his choice. Father and Son. One Being with the Holy Spirit.
Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
If science truly tries to understand the world around us at its deepest level and those scriptures are correct, how is your statement true? The Creator is not reflected in His creation?
You are miscuing on the term science and the figurative nature of those verses. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 were true before modern science existed. Science itself, literally and methodologically, says nothing about God.
We certainly agree about the metaphorical meanings of those verses!
They are not true anymore or is your point that they were true before science (and still true today) and not tied to science? Even if so, I would think science— a deeper understanding of creation would just deepen His divine nature we see in the world around us.
If you studied all my lesson plans and activities, you would be able to figure out some things about me. I don’t take God out of science. Science studies God because it studies His work.
I’m not sure what you mean by “deepen his divine nature that we see.” In any case, it is not science itself that is doing that, it is we who are already believers appreciating his creation more the more that science shows us.
Do you teach in a Christian academic environment or secular? It would make a difference what would say that was not directly science related, not that I would shy away from my faith in a secular environment.
I would certainly say that God is the creator and basis for reality in either setting, but that science itself says nothing directly confirming or denying it. Questions from believing students I would expect to be considerably different than from unbelieving ones.
Hi @Dale, your post really does two things to move the conversation forward. First, and perhaps most importantly, you have been much more precise than I was about what can be determined scientifically, and what cannot. I really appreciate that the term “testable scientific fact” as quite a bit more specific, and better defined terminology, than the way I described it.
Is it, or is it not a fact, that there is no yea or nay about God that can be discerned by scientific enquiry? That is what I am trying to state. I thought that was something you agree with…
So I will restate my fundamental base point: It is a fact that God has chosen not to reveal Himself via testable scientific facts. On further reflection, I agree that the fact that noone has yet identified any testable scientific fact that proves, or disproves, the existence of God does not make it a scientific fact that no such testable scientific fact exists!
The rest of your response seems to be a good example of something I have seen in these discussions more than once. I do agree with your comments about there being some “objective facts” that tend to support the concept that God exists, even though those particular facts do not provide testable scientific proof of God’s existence. But the long discussion about “objective facts” which are consistent with God’s existence doesn’t apply to what I am trying to say, just seems to add to confusion rather than clarify, since you go back to my post, and discuss it as if my post is way off base, because what I said, and what I intended, was inconsistent with your definition of terms (which I now accept as a better basis for discussion!). If I had simply replied to those extended comments, continuing to use my definition of terms in my reply, we could have continued to talk past one another for many exchanges!
I think your later reply to @Vinnie including the distinction between a Christian and a secular academic environment, and pointing out that the study of the universe God created does help us as believers to appreciate his creation more, is a good way to state what I believe; however, the scientific study of the universe has not found a direct, testable scientific answer (either yea or nay) to the question of whether God exists.
And back to the question of the nature of the teaching environment: Isn’t it a potentially serious problem in the USA for the teacher if a teacher in a government supported (usually state or local government) school tries to teach religious concepts in the public school or university classroom?
So are you agreeing that the science that forms the basis for Evolutionary Theory is good science? Or, at least, that you cannot find any reason to say that the science is not good science? If it is good science, why the big hassle?
When talking about science, it is important to talk about science, not about things that cannot be investigated by scientific methods, as good science correctly states.
If you are arguing that science is wrong, then you must argue that point from a scientific viewpoint. If you are claiming that it is not possible to separate scientific investigations and conclusions from religion, then you are way out of line. That is not how science is done. Good science understands the limitations of the methodology. If you state a complaint about a specific scientific result, claim, or conclusion, just because that result seems to you to be inconsistent with your religious beliefs, and offer no evidence that the science is incorrect, then it makes you look absurd, foolish, antediluvian, and like a religious zealot who can’t understand the real world (please note that I am not saying anything about who you are, or what you really believe; I am just saying what the way you are writing in this exchange makes you look like - something I am sure you are not. So why don’t you try not to look like something you are not?).
Is this what you are really trying to get at, that anyone who doesn’t stand out in all respects as a Christian, and push that image out before even starting to discuss other topics, is not really a Christian? Richard, there are a few people in this world who have jobs other than paid minister. And not every one of those can spend working time pushing his or her own particular brand of religion, rather than doing what he or she is getting paid to do.
See the exchange that @Vinnie and @Dale have a few messages down. In the USA, teaching religious concepts in a public school can lead to serious consequences. If teaching about evolution, especially in that environment, it is critical to teach the scientific methodology, that is what the subject matter is about. And scientific methodology also includes a much more carefully evaluated assessment of the limitations of the methodology than any theological study I have ever seen. So it should be important to a teacher even in a religious school to teach the science of evolution accurately, to be very clear about what the observations and analysis says, and what scientific exploration does not say. The teacher in a religious school can also take the discussion to the next level: How do results of scientific investigations relate to our religious beliefs?
Failed to convince you that there is a place for science, even the science of evolution? Failed to convince you that Christians who work in the field of biology can believe something different from what you believe and still be Christians? Failed to convince you that some of the folks on this forum are asking the right questions, asking exactly what is observed, and what is inferred or deduced from those observations, and what (if any) conclusions of the analysis are really open to question?
Do you really believe that only the religious methodology of believing things that are unseen and unproven is the correct methodology to use for everything? If so, please don’t drive a car, or use the internet! There is a very useful, and very practical, place for scientific methodology to be used to improve lives of everyone on this planet. That seems to me sufficient justification for even Christians to learn the methodology, including all the strengths and weaknesses and limitations of the methodology, to apply the methodology and the results of the methodology in their work (again, if paid by an employer, doing what they are paid to do, and not bringing specific religious beliefs into the workplace inappropriately), and then also learn how to integrate what we can learn from scientific investigations with the religious concepts that we believe, also noting as you have stated that Christianity is about faith in things unseen, and unproven.
There is a place for religion, but studying Christianity alone will never provide the material things we humans need to survive, much less the other wonderful inventions that we use to enhance our lives. That is, there is also a place for scientific methodology in our world. And, as it has been pointed out by many in this thread/discussion, even the scientific study, using scientific methodology, identifies many aspects of this wonderful universe that we Christians believe God created, aspects that help us appreciate our God even more .
That is still a question, not a statement, and still ambiguous?
I agree there is no scientific query that can tell us anything about God because science is strictly methodological materialism, natural, and can tell us nothing about God, the supernatural or the metaphysical (if that’s what you want me to agree with, I do ; - ).
I’ve been out of academia for a couple of decades, but yes, I’m sure one has to be careful in the publicly supported classroom. It is my impression though, especially if carefully and graciously done, that extracurricular discussion can be invited outside the classroom without legitimate repercussions. (Illegitimate repercussions could and should be resisted on First Amendment grounds, and by litigation if necessary.) It also may depend significantly on the culture of the school (I’m sure others can address this better than I).
High School. I have the joy of teaching 5 different preps
at the same time this year. 9th grade integrated Physical and Earth Science. Senior Forensics. Drone Technology and Operator Prep, Regular Physics, College Physics (not university for scientists and engineers but they still get 4 credits of regular physics through 83% of the nations schools if they pass). Going to be busy.
I teach only mainstream science. I never share my personal views unless I am asked a question. It’s not professional to indoctrinate youth who are far less knowledgeable and far less capable of debating virtually any issue with me. This is not because I am amazing but because they are high school students and I have a masters and have been debating for decades.
I might relay an incident along the following lines: “I was on the way to church the other day and saw…”… I do that purposefully because then I get the “Wait you go to church, you teach science question.” This lets me explain to students how science works and how you can be religious and embrace science at the same time. On my cabinets is four pieces of regular copy paper, one per window, with the words, as big as the paper allows, “HERE BUT NOT YET. I’ve only had one person ask me about them but they are there for me not anyone else. If I’m having a bad day or the energy is low or student(s)/parents/admin is annoying me, I look at the sign.
Science can’t confirm or deny. It’s beyond the purview of methodological naturalism. God created an ordered world and it is thus discoverable. In spite of this I think the evidence for the design of the cosmos is quite strong. Science has discovered a remarkable degree of what is described as fine-tuning. It requires interpretation but I think it clearly points to a creator. I’m not talking about the human eye, I’m talking about the underlying constants and laws allowing carbon-based life to form in our universe, not only that but the one that allows higher elements to form…. It’s mind boggling how fine-tuned these constants have to be.
But here atheists and Christian’s burned too many times by gaps get to appeal to their own gap in order to deny them or invent an infinite number of universes just to avoid the problem of fine tuning Yes, many scientists deem it a problem and would like a work around. Shows you how neutral science is. Why can’t science discover a universe that is designed for life? Why does science go in ahead of time knowing the answer that the universe was not designed for life? Are we to tell science what the world is like before actually conducting methods and testing it? Seems backwards.
Apparently, thinking we have purpose and meaning is too much for these scientists. They need to go back to us being a cosmic accident.
That’s what I meant, not that I would necessarily say anything about God like I did there as an academic in the publicly funded classroom setting, but neither would I necessarily preclude it.
Actually you addressed that in your comment before:
Nice! It takes some creativity do that sort of thing! But that’s what I meant about the questions you would expect from believing students in a Christian setting – you would not get that “Wait, you go to church… ?” Nor would you have any issue putting out the occasional comment that God’s ordering of the cosmos underlies the science, isn’t this cool. Questions from Christian students in the secular classroom (or after class) would be different yet again.
We are not talking absolutes. Good or bad are poor descriptions, subjective at best, and certain to be provocative if asserted. Science is not always even about being right or wrong.
I have no problem with the methodology. I do have dispute with some of the conclusions or assertions. Especially when those assertions are that the conclusions must be correct. And, if you are disagreeing you must not understand what you are talking about. The whole approach is aloof.
And the onus then is on me to prove I am right or that they must be wrong. Or even that it is a case of the whole thing is right or wrong
So perhaps you can get off your high horse and start again IOW ask me a question I can answer.
How about this for a question that you should be able to answer: Could you please tell me exactly which conclusions or assertions you have a dispute with? Be very specific, identifying only those aspects of any conclusion or assertion that you dispute. And please include every conclusion or assertion that you dispute at this time, so I can know your entire position, rather than having to guess what you mean by reading what you write, often using terms in a manner different from how anyone arguing with you uses those terms.
PS Saying that a particular scientific work is good science is not absolute, it just says that the particular work correctly followed the methodology. And if you can answer my question above, maybe many of us in this group can help you point out the misinterpretations, or improper methodology, or errors in the data collection, that almost certainly are present if the conclusions or assertions are truly false. What I am trying to get at is that even you and those with whom you are arguing so forcefully in this forum are much closer to agreement than any of you are with those scientists who have chosen to espouse atheism! And if we act like the Christians we claim to be, we can discuss even these contentious subjects without judging our brothers and sisters.
No problem.
I dispute the ability of evolution to change a single cell into me, no matter how long it has using the known evolutionary method of change.
I do not dispute that evolution can change the size of a beak, or adjust colouration or even diversify a species. What I do dispute is that evolution can develop any sort of multicellular animal from scratch, and then change it enough to make the diversity of life on earth.
IOW I dispute the whole heredity concept.
DNA does not prove heredity. It might suggest it, but unless you have a process to actually achieve the changes the whole thing is academic.
If you want an example of a change I dispute take the change from a gill slit to a hinged jaw bone. It is a two-dimensional comparison that belies the number of changes to make it happen. You have to
Detach the gill slit (why)
Ossify the gill (why?
Move it to the skull (well we now know why)
Attach it with hinges (what are hinges?)
Attach cartilage and muscles and nerves to drive it.
And that is only the simplistic sequence. All these attachments have to get integrated into the full nervous and circulatory systems
And evolution can do this in one go?
If not, show me a plausible progression that fits with Natural Selection.
What exactly do you mean when you say, “I dispute the whole heredity concept”? Do you mean (first possible meaning) that you have proof that the concept is totally invalid? Or do you mean (second possible meaning) that you insist that there must be something else going on (e.g., something to the effect that God is causing the changes to happen in just the right way to lead to a new species, and that new species is then able to reproduce itself)? Or do you mean (third possible meaning) that the data do not show whether the changes happened “spontaneously” or happened due to external controlling intervention (caused by God)?
I am quite sure that most of the participants in this forum would agree with the third possible meaning. I also request that, if you hold to either the first or the second possible meaning, and insist that either the first or second must be true, that you explain clearly your reasons for insisting. And please note: The fact that DNA suggests heredity, but does not prove heredity, is perfectly consistent with the third possible meaning, but either the first or second possible meaning demands that the proponent of either of these meanings, if insisting that the third is not correct, must show why the suggestion of heredity is false.
Proponents of the third meaning have already agreed that some explanation other than pure chance changes is a potentially valid explanation. And the statement of the third possible meaning has intentionally left out the assignment of probability of truthfulness of any specific choices for explaining the whole issue of heredity. If you are arguing that it is highly unlikely that the changes necessary occured by chance, then I believe you are agreeing with the third possible explanation, with a very strong bias towards believing that the changes did not occur by chance.
Now you have a choice to make. If you are claiming that it is highly unlikely that God created a universe that could produce human life, by pseudo-random evolutionary changes, without His further intervention (a variant of the third possible meaning), I believe we are all much closer to the same page than the discussion has sounded. If you are claiming that there is no possibility at all that God created a universe that could produce human life by pseudo-random evolutionary changes, without His further intervention, then it is incumbent on you to prove (and not merely state that this is what you believe) that this is not possible.